Waqf board ‘scam’: ED has no fresh material, ignoring CBI chargesheet, AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan tells court

“… the investigative agency may require extended time to unravel the multi-layered and masked financial transactions which may have been designed to launder a substantial amount of money (Rs 36 crore) into properties fronted by the agents of accused Amanatullah Khan,” said Special Judge Gogne in his order.

Meanwhile, the court also cautioned the ED to be “cognizant of the attrition of liberty and the constraints on the individual agency of an accused through the instrumentality of custodial investigation”. The agency was further directed to maintain a detailed record of the custodial investigation of the accused during the following three days and present it before the court in the next hearing.

Advocate Rajat Bharadwaj, appearing for Khan, questioned the need to arrest the Okhla MLA: “Khan appeared before the ED on April 18. He was enquired for 13 hours. In the four-day ED custody (which started on Monday), the same questions were asked to him again.”

Calling the ED’s investigation “unfair”, Bharadwaj said the material in this case already existed with the ED in 2023 and that Khan is not named as an accused in the chargesheet filed by the agency this January.

On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Manish Jain, representing the central probe agency, sought 10-day custody of the accused, stating that he had to be confronted with material against him — this included a diary owned by a co-accused and statements of co-accused and witnesses.

“The accused is saying he doesn’t understand English and only understands Hindi. We need to translate statements of the witnesses to confront him,” said Jain.

Bharadwaj, however, argued that all the evidence — including the diary and the statements — existed with the agency since last year. “… they can’t arrest me to confront me with statements which existed in 2023… kuch to naya le aate. Kuch bhi nahi hai inke paas (they have to bring new material… they have nothing against me),” he added.

Bharadwaj also argued: “They could have shown Khan the statements of witnesses on April 18 itself (when he was questioned by the ED). All their statements were recorded before that.”

Addressing the ED, Judge Gogne said: “A substantive part of your confrontation is over it seems. Other accused persons have also already been questioned and confronted.”
It was, however, Jain’s case that there were new witnesses who will be named in the supplementary chargesheet that will be filed and Khan is yet to be confronted with their statements. “On 14 occasions, Khan has not joined the investigation,” the SPP added.

“… the examination of the case diaries by the court today suggests the possibility that the statements or material collected from about 48 witnesses… who are not part of the first prosecution complaint may be required to be confronted to the accused,” the court said in its order.

The case registered by the ED against Khan stems from two FIRs: one filed by the CBI concerning alleged irregularities in Waqf Board appointments, and another by the Delhi Anti-Corruption Branch regarding an alleged case of disproportionate assets. In the CBI’s case, Khan was granted bail as he wasn’t arrested. In the case registered by the ACB, he was granted regular bail after being arrested.

Bharadwaj argued that the ED had ignored the CBI’s chargesheet in this case. “In the CBI chargesheet (against Khan), it is said that there were administrative irregularities and not corruption,” he said.

“No money has been generated in the predicate offence (CBI’s case). Khan has not received any bribes,” Bharadwaj concluded, referring to the CBI chargesheet.

On April 18, the ED summoned Khan and questioned him for 13 hours. According to the agency, he allegedly acquired “huge proceeds of crime” through illegal recruitment of staff, and invested the amount to purchase immovable assets in the name of his aides. All four of his alleged aides are currently in judicial custody.